You can tell from the title what our take on the settlement was. We are also planning on putting up more documents by weeks end including a primer on the tunney act and how it relates to this case. Also, expect a real nice re-design of the page by the end of this week or early next week. If anyone wants some documents right away to draft their comments, email me. My name is Gabe and you can easily get my addy off the contact us link. I am just hesitant for spam reasons to put it here.
As to questions of if this will make a difference: while it is clear the DoJ sold out, (and I can refer you to specific articles here, or read Rep. Coyners letter that discusses some of that) these comments will be used for the Judge to determine if the agreement is in the public interest. The Judge is not biased one way or the other, and a strong showing of letters, esp. from tech sophisticated people will help prove to her that the agreement is in ffact not in the public interest.
All anti-trust cases are federal cases, it is a federal statute, and one of the few issues that has original jurisdiction in a federal court. If a State, private company, individual, or Fed govt wants to bring suit on anti-trust, it is a federal matter.
Now just because the Bush DoJ (and I did vote for the man) sold out, and gave MS a deal replete with so many loopholes that you could drive a truck through, additionally exempting them from anti-trust laws, additionally refusing to do what the Court of Appeals asked for in a remedy (for the fruits of their illegal conduct to be destroyed, you know the same court that everyone who refuses to read the opinion of says precluded break-up, but in fact did nothing of that nature), then States SHOULD STAND UP.
After all, these State A.G.s did not get millions of dollars from MS in contributions (yes, the GOP recieved around 2 million last year, and the same fundraisers who took the checks are also now working in DoJ as Ashcroft's top luitenants, Also see the Wash. Post article talking about how a top MS lawyer regularly consulted with DoJ anti-trust chief Charles James (he was James' mentor))
But I am not cynical, just hoping the states stay vigalant.
Oh, that is why the States do not need to capitulate to the DoJ decision
In actuality, they reversed breakup not on the merits, but for lack of hearings on remedy (one of two big mistakes that Judge Jackson made). They never took break-up off the table, just required a strong showing in hearings that break-up was justified, something they may have said was difficult, but allowed for.
Further, Read their rejection of MS' appeal on tying and motion to stay pending Supreme COurt action on Petition for Cert. They specificall said that NO REMEDIES WERE PRECLUDED from their June decision.
FYI, I posted this [slashdot.org] on Tuesday of this week:
Apparently Sen. Hollings was to have a hearing this week on the bill. Well Internet Daily reports that due to all the "general confusion" and some of this opposition, he will delay the hearing and won't introduce until he has "dialog" with affected industries. I have heard from second hand sources that even the BSA (not Boy Scouts) are not keen with this bill. Seems like it could DOA, or even pre arrival. But as always, keep vigilant!
Apparently Sen. Hollings was to have a hearing this week on the bill. Well Internet Daily reports that due to all the "general confusion" and some of this opposition, he will delay the hearing and won't introduce until he has "dialog" with affected industries. I have heard from second hand sources that even the BSA (not Boy Scouts) are not keen with this bill. Seems like it could DOA, or even pre arrival. But as always, keep vigilant!
I live in DC, and during the attacks, my phones (land lines and cells) were pretty jammed up. The only way I could get in touch with family and others for the first few hours was through email, aim, and irc. While I was watching tv and not the web sites so much. But as a communication tool, it was invaluable (which I believe is what the net was supposed to be used for in the first place...in case of massive attacks, a de-centralized communication and file sharing tool). It was not until noon, close to 3 hours of downtime, that I could use my phone, and it was spotty all day.
Of course, this would have been meaningless had I used a dial-up account.
Hollings is not a ranking anything, he is the chairman of the commerce committee and the CJS subcommitte of approps. The Senate is in dem hands now and so dems are chairs, not ranking members.
He is being targeted by this $$ because he is the chair of commerce committee and that has jurisdiction. This bill would go to either commerce or judiciary (most likely commerce) and as such, he is important for the industry to have on board. Note, before the switch it was McCain who chaired that committe, that is McCain as in Campaign Finance McCain.
Keep in mind, looking at Holling's record, he is in the agrarian mold of commerce, and is not tech friendly, and seems to lack a clue in most of these areas.
well you could always use a test that people over 18 should be able to do, see if they can acuratly fill out a voting card...oh wait, I guess that excludes old pr0n hounds in florida.
"Bush, who lost California big time in 2000, won't carry it next time either, but he certainly isn't going to let northern California's biggest bribes all go to the other side."
Hello, most of No. Cal wants to see MS broken up, not the reverse. Does Oracle and Sun mean anything to this writer, along with countless other firms who are either dead now (netscape et. al) or on life support due to MS activities. If this was true, Bush would be shooting himself in the foot.
The MS folks have given a lot of $$ politically to both sides, moreso to GOP, but they hedged their bets, and Bushies caved, no suprise, and that point can be effectivly made (and is, look at Rep. Conyers recent letter to Ashcroft askiong for details of sr. Bush officials meeting with MS folks). But to say that is a grand conspiracy and that Northern California wants an MS monopoly is just ridiculous.
Once again, the nation, takes a point that could be made, but sees sinister conspiracy in all capitolism and damns the sytsem. It just aint there, and it is a hallmark of their shoddy journalism. Follow the $$, enough MS donations to convince anyone of what is going, and it was Ms caused Bush to cave, no one else. Trust me, Gates and Ballmer can do a good enough job themsleves, they don't need Hollywood helping them. Moreover, those guys are not going to waste their chits helping po' Gates when they got DMCA to expand and Holling SSSCA (see wired article) to implement.
actually, you can foward 10 port ranges, not just 10 ports. This makes it slightly more useful. I can for example foward 20 and 21 on the same line, though I can never see myself using more then 2 or 3 ranges, just ftp and vnc. Now if only I can get my server running again. Can't determine if it is a fault due to the router or upgrading to 2k (i know, should use linux, but i could not get ftpd or anything working there). It is wierd, I can upload to the server but not download off it.
There is a huge diffeerence b/t apple and MS. MS is a monopoly and has a dominant position. The law treats monopolies much differently than non-monopolies. Many companies can try and act in ways the MS does but won't be prosecuted as they are not a monopoly. But more fundementally, they WONT BE SUCCESFUL by virtue of their position. Most users who buy a PC do not know they have other options for OS and are forced to buy Windows with that. Most people who buy an Apple chose to do so in part b/c of the OS and what it comes with. If Apple had 84% market share in OS (as MS does), it would be a different story, Apple does not even have double digit market share. It is not just a legal technicality but a practical technicality.
Anyways, while the media player and bundling are significant to the EU case, the bread and butter is the small server market share, liscensing issues, and OS and Server dependancies--something Apple does not attempt, or even have the ability to try.
Our website has a pretty comprehensive section on this whole issue including press releases on the EU action, the EU release, a FAQ on the statement of objextions, a timeline of proceedings, a summary/primer of EU antitrust enforcement, and other info. It is being updated through the day and will continually be updated as warrented. Check out the EU specific stuff here!
don't be too happy. The sup court will likely deny, the case remains in the District, then will again be appealed to the circuit, and then to the supreme court again. There is virtually no way the sup.. ct will take it. Even if they do and vacate the whole decision, we go back to square one, with new evidentary hearings.
Oh this is a far way from over. What is interesting though is they did not even contest any of the substance. It was all, Judge Jackson should have kept his mouth shut. He did not, therefore the whole ruling is invalidater. This is not supported by the law.
Slashdot Mirror
i don't know if they still make it, but i remember drinking 22 ozers of red hook/starbucks beer. Now that was a head of steam
With out shilling too much here, may I recommend this document, Anatomy of a sellout on our website.
You can tell from the title what our take on the settlement was. We are also planning on putting up more documents by weeks end including a primer on the tunney act and how it relates to this case. Also, expect a real nice re-design of the page by the end of this week or early next week. If anyone wants some documents right away to draft their comments, email me. My name is Gabe and you can easily get my addy off the contact us link. I am just hesitant for spam reasons to put it here.
As to questions of if this will make a difference: while it is clear the DoJ sold out, (and I can refer you to specific articles here, or read Rep. Coyners letter that discusses some of that) these comments will be used for the Judge to determine if the agreement is in the public interest. The Judge is not biased one way or the other, and a strong showing of letters, esp. from tech sophisticated people will help prove to her that the agreement is in ffact not in the public interest.
Well it is probabably good you are not a lawyer :)
All anti-trust cases are federal cases, it is a federal statute, and one of the few issues that has original jurisdiction in a federal court. If a State, private company, individual, or Fed govt wants to bring suit on anti-trust, it is a federal matter.
Now just because the Bush DoJ (and I did vote for the man) sold out, and gave MS a deal replete with so many loopholes that you could drive a truck through, additionally exempting them from anti-trust laws, additionally refusing to do what the Court of Appeals asked for in a remedy (for the fruits of their illegal conduct to be destroyed, you know the same court that everyone who refuses to read the opinion of says precluded break-up, but in fact did nothing of that nature), then States SHOULD STAND UP.
After all, these State A.G.s did not get millions of dollars from MS in contributions (yes, the GOP recieved around 2 million last year, and the same fundraisers who took the checks are also now working in DoJ as Ashcroft's top luitenants, Also see the Wash. Post article talking about how a top MS lawyer regularly consulted with DoJ anti-trust chief Charles James (he was James' mentor))
But I am not cynical, just hoping the states stay vigalant.
Oh, that is why the States do not need to capitulate to the DoJ decision
In actuality, they reversed breakup not on the merits, but for lack of hearings on remedy (one of two big mistakes that Judge Jackson made). They never took break-up off the table, just required a strong showing in hearings that break-up was justified, something they may have said was difficult, but allowed for.
Further, Read their rejection of MS' appeal on tying and motion to stay pending Supreme COurt action on Petition for Cert. They specificall said that NO REMEDIES WERE PRECLUDED from their June decision.
FYI, I posted this [slashdot.org] on Tuesday of this week:
Apparently Sen. Hollings was to have a hearing this week on the bill. Well Internet Daily reports that due to all the "general confusion" and some of this opposition, he will delay the hearing and won't introduce until he has "dialog" with affected industries. I have heard from second hand sources that even the BSA (not Boy Scouts) are not keen with this bill. Seems like it could DOA, or even pre arrival. But as always, keep vigilant!
Apparently Sen. Hollings was to have a hearing this week on the bill. Well Internet Daily reports that due to all the "general confusion" and some of this opposition, he will delay the hearing and won't introduce until he has "dialog" with affected industries. I have heard from second hand sources that even the BSA (not Boy Scouts) are not keen with this bill. Seems like it could DOA, or even pre arrival. But as always, keep vigilant!
I live in DC, and during the attacks, my phones (land lines and cells) were pretty jammed up. The only way I could get in touch with family and others for the first few hours was through email, aim, and irc. While I was watching tv and not the web sites so much. But as a communication tool, it was invaluable (which I believe is what the net was supposed to be used for in the first place...in case of massive attacks, a de-centralized communication and file sharing tool). It was not until noon, close to 3 hours of downtime, that I could use my phone, and it was spotty all day.
Of course, this would have been meaningless had I used a dial-up account.
Hollings is not a ranking anything, he is the chairman of the commerce committee and the CJS subcommitte of approps. The Senate is in dem hands now and so dems are chairs, not ranking members.
He is being targeted by this $$ because he is the chair of commerce committee and that has jurisdiction. This bill would go to either commerce or judiciary (most likely commerce) and as such, he is important for the industry to have on board. Note, before the switch it was McCain who chaired that committe, that is McCain as in Campaign Finance McCain.
Keep in mind, looking at Holling's record, he is in the agrarian mold of commerce, and is not tech friendly, and seems to lack a clue in most of these areas.
well you could always use a test that people over 18 should be able to do, see if they can acuratly fill out a voting card...oh wait, I guess that excludes old pr0n hounds in florida.
"Bush, who lost California big time in 2000, won't carry it next time either, but he certainly isn't going to let northern California's biggest bribes all go to the other side."
Hello, most of No. Cal wants to see MS broken up, not the reverse. Does Oracle and Sun mean anything to this writer, along with countless other firms who are either dead now (netscape et. al) or on life support due to MS activities. If this was true, Bush would be shooting himself in the foot.
The MS folks have given a lot of $$ politically to both sides, moreso to GOP, but they hedged their bets, and Bushies caved, no suprise, and that point can be effectivly made (and is, look at Rep. Conyers recent letter to Ashcroft askiong for details of sr. Bush officials meeting with MS folks). But to say that is a grand conspiracy and that Northern California wants an MS monopoly is just ridiculous.
Once again, the nation, takes a point that could be made, but sees sinister conspiracy in all capitolism and damns the sytsem. It just aint there, and it is a hallmark of their shoddy journalism. Follow the $$, enough MS donations to convince anyone of what is going, and it was Ms caused Bush to cave, no one else. Trust me, Gates and Ballmer can do a good enough job themsleves, they don't need Hollywood helping them. Moreover, those guys are not going to waste their chits helping po' Gates when they got DMCA to expand and Holling SSSCA (see wired article) to implement.
actually, you can foward 10 port ranges, not just 10 ports. This makes it slightly more useful. I can for example foward 20 and 21 on the same line, though I can never see myself using more then 2 or 3 ranges, just ftp and vnc. Now if only I can get my server running again. Can't determine if it is a fault due to the router or upgrading to 2k (i know, should use linux, but i could not get ftpd or anything working there). It is wierd, I can upload to the server but not download off it.
There is a huge diffeerence b/t apple and MS. MS is a monopoly and has a dominant position. The law treats monopolies much differently than non-monopolies. Many companies can try and act in ways the MS does but won't be prosecuted as they are not a monopoly. But more fundementally, they WONT BE SUCCESFUL by virtue of their position. Most users who buy a PC do not know they have other options for OS and are forced to buy Windows with that. Most people who buy an Apple chose to do so in part b/c of the OS and what it comes with. If Apple had 84% market share in OS (as MS does), it would be a different story, Apple does not even have double digit market share. It is not just a legal technicality but a practical technicality.
Anyways, while the media player and bundling are significant to the EU case, the bread and butter is the small server market share, liscensing issues, and OS and Server dependancies--something Apple does not attempt, or even have the ability to try.
Our website has a pretty comprehensive section on this whole issue including press releases on the EU action, the EU release, a FAQ on the statement of objextions, a timeline of proceedings, a summary/primer of EU antitrust enforcement, and other info. It is being updated through the day and will continually be updated as warrented. Check out the EU specific stuff here!
you can email me at grubin@ccianet.org I don';t post my reg address online (and pray to god i dont get spammed)
i live in DC, and just finished reading both of MS' briefs
don't be too happy. The sup court will likely deny, the case remains in the District, then will again be appealed to the circuit, and then to the supreme court again. There is virtually no way the sup.. ct will take it. Even if they do and vacate the whole decision, we go back to square one, with new evidentary hearings. Oh this is a far way from over. What is interesting though is they did not even contest any of the substance. It was all, Judge Jackson should have kept his mouth shut. He did not, therefore the whole ruling is invalidater. This is not supported by the law.